There are those of us who run serious blogs on the web, where we're happy to engage in conversation with people on serious issues. And these blogs, it's pleasing to note, seem to appeal to a lot of people.
This place is, I think, one such blog.
Like most of those who blog in this way I do so from within the (well within) the mainstream of UK politics. I have some qualification to put forward the opinion I do, although I don't think that need disqualify others: life's a great university. And like many who write from this perspective I attract the attention of what might best be called trolls.
These trolls are a web phenomenon.
They're also heavily associated with extreme libertarianism who follow (as a consequence of their extreme libertarianism) extreme right wing agendas, although they, of course, don't see it that way.
They are, to put it nicely....no there's no way to put it nicely. So I won't.
But I loved this reaction to them in the comments policy of The Big Picture blog:
Trolls and Asshats:
This may be a free country, but The Big Picture is my personal fiefdom. I rule over all as benevolent dictator. I will ban anyone whom I choose from posting comments – usually, for a damned good reason, but on rare occasions, for the exact same reason God created the platypus: because I feel like it.
Now the trolls won't understand that. Because they're all ultra-rational enlightenment people; logical positivists to the core, so a statement such as this has no meaning to them.
But it sure as heck has to a human being.
And sometimes it's just how I feel.
And if you tried to comment and I didn't like it, well, bad luck (that's the nice version). I used my judgement. Sometimes I may get things wrong. But you know, that's the way it is. Live with it.
Or start your own blog.
That's what liberty really is - not the right to whinge. But you'd never know if you observed the trolls, who as far as I can tell are positivists to the core, and yet have never once had a positive thought to share between them.
Hat tip: Nick Shaxson
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I know you’re unlikely to publish this but just by way of a quick response following the above and our earlier exchange on Twitter.
First of all I do have a blog – http://liammurray71.wordpress.com/ – nowhere near as well-read or successful as yours I’ll grant but I do have one. You’ll see I also have a short comment policy – less comprehensive than yours but then I get far less comments (next to none lately). The distinction I will point out though is the only thing I ask commenters to avoid is abuse or a derogatory tone; you have quite a different requirement in that you won’t accept comments which:
“question the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based”
…or, as you say elsewhere:
“..agreement with me is not a condition of a comment being accepted, but disagreement must be reasoned and be offered within the framework of understanding that this blog seeks to promote”
I’m sure it’s not your intention but insisting on a dialogue that only accepts tenets which you consider worthy or which ‘fits’ within a self-defined framework is a euphamism for a closed & narrow dialgoue. By all means reject the rude & abusive, by all means reject even those who are polite but seem unable to accept answers you’ve already offered up – but rejecting comments which ask you only to clarify your position is not consistent with either free spech or editorial freedom and I suspect you know that Richard.
Quick final observation – I’m sure, given the popularity of the blog you are prey to uber-libertarian types who reject everything you hold dear & make a proper dialogue in the comments section difficult. I understand the desire to find a means to exclude such people. But please be clear I’m not one of those. In fact I’m a life-long Labour voter (until last May) and a resolute centrist in political outlook. I often read things here I profoundly disagree with, on other occasions things I strongly support and which prompt further reading. At the risk of being too presumptious can I suggest that a comments policy that excludes a dialogue with people of my bent isn’t very helpful to your cause?
Thanks & best of luck regardless….
I understand and sympathise with Richard’s position re blog comments.
One reason why people comment (and especially what attracts the trolls) is the fact that the blog is so well read – I nearly said popular 😉
On the Tax-Buzz blog (http://www.Tax-Buzz.co.uk) I frequently debunk tax stories in the media but attract very few trolls. I have not therefore had cause to set out a comments policy. I simply delete the odd spambot comment.
I’m aware of the old adage ‘ be careful what you wish for’ so am not looking to replicate the readership levels that Richard gets. But all non-trolls are welcome!
Mark
All dialogue depends on certain shared frames of reference. At the most basic level, shared language. If there is no demand for agreement on fundamental tenets, Richard has to go back to first principles in every dialogue, preventing any development. This is boring for most of his readers who want to move on from there.
You wouldn’t expect to be taken seriously on a sciencey blog, talking about creationism. Or on a churchy blog asking “But why do you think there is a God?
I wish I could have put it that neatly….
Thanks
With respect James you didn’t see the blocked comment that provoked this exchange. I completely agree that some sort of shared ground is precondition of decent dialogue and as indicated above I can well imagine the sort of dross Richard has to deal with on a daily basis.
The comment blocked however was simply a request for clarity, perhaps to provoke further comment yes but in itself the question actually had no assumptions or ‘frames of reference’ with which Richard could disagree. And it came from a life-long (until last year) Labour supporter very interested in the key themes of this blog and their relevance to the main challenges facing the country (lack of growth, deficit reduction etc.) As I said above if a comments policy excludes that sort of dialogue from people with that sort of background then I struggle to see it as helpful to the cause of tax justice.
Whatsmore
Liam
As I said, I can err
But in this case I doubt it: I deleted your comment because I felt ti added nothing to debate and wasted my time having to answer it when i have dealt with the issue endless times before
But that’s not the point now
You assume this blog post has something to do with you
No, not true
Nick Shaxson sent me the comment I blogged during yesterday quite coincidentally
You had nothing to do with it
Sorry to disappoint again
Richard
OK thanks.
I don’t doubt the prompt for the post but I think I have made a reasonably strong case that you were too hasty to delete my question yesterday – you seem to be acknowledging that as a possibility too so thank you.
I will still comment occassionally, in the spirit of your comments policy of course and look forward to some dialogue.
Thanks again, Liam.
Please do
I acknowledge – you’re not a troll
Sorry if i made you feel that way
Too damned easy when the world seems full of them when you run a blog like this
Your gaff, your rules Richard. Anyone who doesn’t want to play by your rules doesn’t have to be here. I’ve got no beef with that.
But having set up that logic, it does make it slightly more difficult for you to complain when others do the same (I’m thinking of your recent tweet about the Daily Mail).
“Now the trolls won’t understand that. Because they’re all ultra-rational enlightenment people.” I have to disagree with this Richard, or are you just being tongue in cheek when you call then rational, and I’ve fallen for it?
Rational is the last thing most of the raving right could be called, their obsession with the unregulated free market and their equally dogmatic dislike of the public sector and the role of the state don’t seem very rational to me. Simple example; without the despised state to step in and rescue the banks from their own folly, their precious free market would barely exist.
Sorry, yes I was being a cynic
Let’s be clear: they think they’re ultra rational
Actually they’re nowhere near the normal spectrum of human behaviour which is why you don’t het them, and rightly so!
And your conclusion is 100% right!